Canon PowerShot G16 Real-world Samples Gallery

Canon's latest flagship compact camera features a 12MP CMOS sensor, 28-140mm equivalent zoom lens and built-in WiFi. The PowerShot G16 was announced just a few days ago, but we've managed to get hold of one and we've spent the weekend shooting with it in a range of different environments. There's more content on the way, but in the meantime, we hope you enjoy our quick 38-image gallery of JPEGs from the 12MP PowerShot G16.

Canon PowerShot G16 Sample Gallery

There are 38 images in our samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution.

Comments

I don't know what city that is across the river in image 0278, but it is horribly blurry. I have a very old Canon point-and-shoot camera that has a 7 MP sensor that can do better than that. 12 MP isn't that big, so Canon should have been able to get clearer pictures out of the sensor. In the early days I thought that Canon was the best brand, but I haven't felt that way in about seven years.

The fact is, Sigma cameras have spoiled me for other brands. Sigma images are so sharp and clear. But the images from this Canon camera seem like a throw-back to five years ago; that kind of blurriness is no longer acceptable.

G16 might be better than G15 but the price can't be justified and it doesn't have enough improvements to attract existing users of G15 and even G12, and IQ still inferior to RX100. Come on man, canon do better than that

I think Canon gained half a stop of low light goodness thanks to the new combination sensor/processor.I'm just disappointed that they didn't go as wide as 24mm, and to see purple fringing less well handled than in my S110. A lot of it around bright spots. :(I'd still chose G16 over LX7 because of thickness, and color management in JPEGS. Yes JPEGS, we still need them for family shots. :)

I don't know if those shots were taken in auto mode, but if they were, it's quite competent at exposure control, and the color balance very good. The skin color was, not analizing much, close to perfect, looking quite natural. It's the G just getting better and better, but I guess I would still get the LX7. Inferior, but for me buying a camera with a such small sensor, it has to come with a heck of a bright German lens, just for me to admire it and boast about it (may sound silly, I know). Other than that, I don't see an appeal in it, and I would rather go for a 1-inch sensor or larger.

In the film era, there were the 110 film format, and it was already considered small and DOF limiting enough, and nowadays we have this strong culture on a sensor FIVE TIMES SMALLER!

If you're talking to me, WaynDB, I'm just tired of the online commenting mindset of dropping one's mental vomit haphazardly. People say things here they probably wouldn't say in front of other human beings or they say things without thought or consideration because it's just the internet, say whatever stupid thought first pops into your mind.

Regardless of the fact that you make complete sense, you have been extra sensitive lately and more likely to give yourself a stress disease than put a dent in the Berlin wall of trolls that infest. DPR.

Canon makes many good lenses, but certainly the G16 lens is not among them. The sample pictures show clearly that the G16 lens is soft wide open in the corners. Take, for example, the picture IMG_0520, with the lens at F/2.0. The center is sharp, but the foliage in the upper left corner is very fuzzy because of astigmatism and coma. Similarly, the lettering in the sign farthest from the center is considerably more blurred than other sign.

The corners are visibly worse than the center even at F/2.8, as can be seen by observing the details of the houses in IMG_0281.

As an experiment, I reduced with PS the resolution of IMG_0520 to 2000 x 1500 (3 MP), but, surprisingly, the corner softness was still evident. If the G16 lens would be marginally suitable for a 3 MP sensor, imagine how limited it is for use with the actual 12 MP sensor.

What you're seeing is the same barrel distortion correction that every point and shoot suffers from. The lens pushes the limits of its size and that results in distortion that has to be corrected in software, which results in softer corners. Oh, and very, very few lenses are any good in the corners at f/2 anyway. Or even f/2.8. Your downsizing experiment is extremely flawed. The issue is the size of the image circle. Now take the center 3MP of the image and see how stunningly amazing it is. The edges and especially the corners that come from all but the most expensive lenses are often softer at wide apertures and short focal lengths. The corners are the worst because you have to spend a lot of money to make sure the very perimeter of the image circle stays sharp as well as distortion and vignetting free.

No, howardroark, I think we are seeiing a decentered lens. In all the shots I looked at the right was softer than the left, especially in the upper right. The upper half is softer than the lower half too. If that is the best performance that lens offers, then I wouldn't bother with this camera at all.

Whether it is decentered or not, there is distortion being corrected in-camera. The only camera that I know of put under the microscope enough to thoroughly explore the subject is the G1 X, but that example revealed a lot about what goes into the design of a point and shoot camera.

Looks like Canon has a new approach to noise reduction. They seem to be letting more grain show through rather than try to obliterate it at high ISOs. I think it looks much better this way. Of course people will complain about the noise now. Nikon N1 cameras and the LX7 are similar at handling the noise. Much better than looking at a smeary water color mess.

It seems to me that hight iso shots are at least as good as those from the previous G15 (already very good and with excelent color rendition).. I also guess that if you use raw than you can expect to maximize dynamic range as you can do with the previous model.

Being faster is good, but not enough reason, at least for me, for upgrading from the previous G that I own, and currently use as my "allways with me" camera.

I would like to see an abatible or foldable lcd screen in the next model as some improvement in the viewfinder, especially increasing its percentage of view.

All in all, I have to say that G cameras are still very good cameras, with excellent ergonomics, bright lens, good AF and what is more important nice results, don't fool yourself with the not good comments from some people here and give it a try, I guess you could be surprised as I was after purchasing mine.

I'm sure when you look at both at 100% (using an ISO 100 shot in bright sunlight) they probably don't look all that different....and then you realize that the newer image is about four times the area and contains much more detail and has much, much cleaner high ISO. People have no idea what they're looking at.

It would be interesting if you were able to take the G15 out at the same time and do some comparison shots between the two. Based on the sample shots, one thing that the G16 is still doing is overexposing and blowing out highlights just like the G15 did. You might as well just set the exposure comp dial to -1EV and leave it there.

That said, I'll bet it was an enjoyable camera to shoot with. Especially if the Canon claims of increased speed are true. The color performance is also very nice.

Ok peoplez lets put this into perspective. To choose this camera over a Sony RX100 for around the same price is absurd. However to choose a mobile phone purely for its IQ over the G16 is even more absurd! Anyone who knows even a little about photography knows that there is no point going into explanations about this. Of the literally thousands of mobile phones out there, only a couple stand out as having the kind of IQ that would give something like the G16 a decent run. But they cost a fair bit more which puts them well into entry level dslr and mirroless territory.

The issue is not with this camera in and of itself as its essentially a slightly tweaked G15 which received solid reviews. Its when its viewed in relation to the competition and other options at the price point that it can become a potentially problematic purchase.

One cannot compare a G with the M. Totally different category. I have a Canon 5D MkII with some expensive Zeiss primes and L zoom lenses yet I still use a G12 for many occasions. When used properly even my G12 can give quite good photos, even at night.

The EOS M is not a successful camera because of its very slow focus, lack of built-in flash and viewfinder. The "bar of soap" design does not help when it comes to holding it. Canon certainly have not put enough thought into the overall design when they launch it.

Recently, Canon seem to be "disposing" the M at a very low price in some markets. Maybe there is something new coming.

G12 and M are two completely different cameras. the G beats the M in pure versatility, and the swivel screen is godly. Th eG series can be carried in hand, no bag without too much to worry about (just dont bang it).

The M feels waaaaayyyyyyy more delicate, and its small size makes it difficult to get s sure grip when you are shooting.

The G is a magical camera..moreso with the old swivel though. Its treated me very very well and its good to see when i look for a g17, the senor will be at least as good as it is now.

There are some situations where all cameras do a pretty good job. I'd say in 99% of picture taking situations the G16 will kick 99% of mobile phones' butts. Or are you saying that if YOU were given a mobile phone and this camera you wouldn't be able to get any more out of the G16 than your phone? Yeah, that might be true.

I could only guess that some people that use mobile phone cameras as their only camera, may not be able to tell the difference, or simply do not care about better image quality. I am impressed about the ISO 1600 of this camera and many of the clean sharp plane images. Most phone cameras are not even close.

I doubt it. You really need a better sensor like the Canon PS G1 X or a decent dSLR for astrophotography. I tried using a G11 for astrophotography a few years back and the photos were just too grainy. I currently use my G1 X and my 60D, both of which have their purpose in astrophotography, and both have comparable IQ. I love using the G1 X because it is quick and easy to set up, has a TRUE infinity on MF, and is easy to carry. But it is best used for capturing satellite flyovers, meteor showers, and doing time lapse of star fields. You could use the G16 in the same way, but the IQ would be very disappointing.

Given dark skies and good atmospheric conditions, The G16 could produce decent results, while I agree this isn't the first choice for AP. Perhaps adding this function will draw more people into pursuing this type of photography. I for one am glad to see this.

Top end phone: lousy high ISO, poor low light AF, no zoom, no RAW, JPEG engine smooths noise down to the point there's nothing left but an oil painting, very poor flash, no manual adjustments (and if there is an app that will what would be the point), no tripod mount without accessory, much lower detail resolution (poor noise reduction, sharpening, etc), poor if any continuous shooting, no flash hot shoe, and I'm sure there are ten other things I'm not mentioning. I think "marginal increases" is not only extremely subjective but just plain wrong. As for "mirrorless" maybe people don't want zoom lens that makes the camera difficult to carry or they don't want to switch lenses. ILC cameras are not the camera design to end all other camera designs, and the G16 is also mirrorless. There are plenty of reasons to want a mid-size camera with all sorts of controls and features and a lens that stores flat.I felt the same way earlier, CG. I guess I'm getting a second wind.

Though I agree that the G16 is lackluster in nearly every way, I wish people would quit saying it is better to buy a mirrorless camera than a P&S with built in lens. These two types of cameras are NOT in the same class or design, and they appeal to buyers for totally different reasons. A person who wants a smallish P&S with built-in lens doesn't consider getting a mirrorless camera and several lenses instead of it, or vice versa. Mirrorless cameras are NOT the GD replacement for all other cameras.

There are obviously people that are willing to drop $600 on a point and shoot, even a good one. I'm just not one of them.

Photographers in general (or maybe I'm just weird) care more about IQ, so if Im gonna drop 600 on a camera I'm going to get something that takes high quality pictures. When Im working or going out to shoot for fun, im taking a real camera with me. When Im out and about and need to take a snapshot (amd for some reason I don't have any of my cameras with me), my phone is generally plenty.

All I was saying was it seems way overpriced for what it is... $600 for something that takes (even) ~50% better photos than a phone is ALOT.

JW, you'd use a "real" camera or a mirrorless? Get a decent DSLR instead of a lousy mirrorless if you want a real camera. ILC or "mirrorless" (I think that is a horrible way to describe a camera) still doesn't count as real.

Pretty impressive at ISO 1600 for its sensor size, and thanks to the relatively wide aperture (especially for the mid and tele range), it'll need to go that high less often than a camera like the RX100.

Dithering is visible already at ISO 400 when viewing 1:1 of course, but still... Pretty cool what you can get from a small inch sensor nowadays.

From my experience, I was very happy with the convenience, viewfinder, quality lens and simple layout of the dials on top of my G12. I won a lot of competitions with photos up to 20X30", but mostly 12x16 and 16x20s. (Noise terrible above ISO 400, though). In February the lens froze while in a zoomed position. It was too expensive to repair or replace, so was unhappy with the G15 for not having a moveable LCD screen in back (though there was a lot of improvements I liked). I complained to Canon. I waited for the G16 and now even unhappier. I'm being patient. When any other new camera comes along that I like and has the moveable LCD screen, I plan to buy it. In the meantime, I have a few other cameras to use (that won't fit on my belt) but I will wait.